I was curious because of how unashamedly propagandist this article is. So I clicked on the author link. It seems this is the only article he’s ever written for this website (I hesitate to call it a news outlet). Also, it says he’s a former republican political consultant now working for the Lincoln Project. That’s apparently the name of a moderate republican PAC that is trying to fight Trumpism.
So why would a political news website outright publish propaganda from a PAC without any commentary? I’ve never heard of the new republic before, but they seem to be an otherwise unremarkable progressive political magazine. I couldn’t say whether the new republic is getting paid by the PAC to publish this, or whether they just took it because it generally aligns with their own stated political views. I will say that, although it is mentioned at the bottom that the author currently works for the Lincoln Project, I had to really look for that. it also wasn’t clear to me at first this was a PAC. So in my opinion, proper journalistic ethical standards are not being upheld here.
Given the article’s origins, it’s pretty safe to say none of this is genuine. These are moderate republicans who hate Trump, trying desperately to destroy Trumpism. If they truly believed their own article they’d be democrats. And if you’re here wondering if the article is worth reading, I’d say it is practically fully content-free. It’s all just hopium.
If that’s your argument you should see how many different rich assholes have owned it over the last century. Most recently it was acquired in 2016 by Win McCormack from Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes.
They didn’t say it was reputable, just remarkable, which doesn’t mean it’s good or accurate, just that it has had a place in the media sphere for a while.
Good to know, thanks. I’m not too familiar with the American news media, although I know there’s a lot of it around. I checked them briefly and they didn’t seem all too different from e.g. Huffington Post or other similar sites, which is why I called them unremarkable. It’s interesting to see they have a long history.
I don’t think this materially affects any of my conclusions on the article itself though.
Welcome to American media! Brand new dogshit media companies made to make profit mixed with century old names, bought and turned to shit to make profit!
I was curious because of how unashamedly propagandist this article is. So I clicked on the author link. It seems this is the only article he’s ever written for this website (I hesitate to call it a news outlet). Also, it says he’s a former republican political consultant now working for the Lincoln Project. That’s apparently the name of a moderate republican PAC that is trying to fight Trumpism.
So why would a political news website outright publish propaganda from a PAC without any commentary? I’ve never heard of the new republic before, but they seem to be an otherwise unremarkable progressive political magazine. I couldn’t say whether the new republic is getting paid by the PAC to publish this, or whether they just took it because it generally aligns with their own stated political views. I will say that, although it is mentioned at the bottom that the author currently works for the Lincoln Project, I had to really look for that. it also wasn’t clear to me at first this was a PAC. So in my opinion, proper journalistic ethical standards are not being upheld here.
Given the article’s origins, it’s pretty safe to say none of this is genuine. These are moderate republicans who hate Trump, trying desperately to destroy Trumpism. If they truly believed their own article they’d be democrats. And if you’re here wondering if the article is worth reading, I’d say it is practically fully content-free. It’s all just hopium.
deleted by creator
If that’s your argument you should see how many different rich assholes have owned it over the last century. Most recently it was acquired in 2016 by Win McCormack from Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes.
https://money.cnn.com/2016/02/26/media/new-republic-chris-hughes-win-mccormack/index.html
By your logic the new York times is reputable just because the name is the same as its always been.
They didn’t say it was reputable, just remarkable, which doesn’t mean it’s good or accurate, just that it has had a place in the media sphere for a while.
Good to know, thanks. I’m not too familiar with the American news media, although I know there’s a lot of it around. I checked them briefly and they didn’t seem all too different from e.g. Huffington Post or other similar sites, which is why I called them unremarkable. It’s interesting to see they have a long history.
I don’t think this materially affects any of my conclusions on the article itself though.
Welcome to American media! Brand new dogshit media companies made to make profit mixed with century old names, bought and turned to shit to make profit!
redacted